Even so, "Natural gender" makes perfect sense, seeing as everything within the natural universe is, by definition, natural. Even social constructs and synthetic materials.

You are twisting the thing being deemed "natural". certainly social constructions of gender are "natural" in the sense of the fact that they are normal; that's what we as social animals do. However, that does not mean the gender roles themselves are natural or inherent, they are still constructed. that's a big difference.

And, you know, reality is that you will only have as much power as men permit.

This is true in the past, but technology has largely negated the advantages of physical strength. Even among men, there is no correlation between wealth and physical strength. Some of the greatest men in history were physically unimpressive.

This has never ceased to be the case.
How many times when you walk home in the dark of night haven't you wished that you had a big sturdy guy with you?

But this need can largely be met with technology if the collective will was there.

I'm just ballsy enough to stand up and challenge this bullshit. It's gone too far.

You are twisting the thing being deemed "natural". certainly social constructions of gender are "natural" in the sense of the fact that they are normal; that's what we as social animals do. However, that does not mean the gender roles themselves are natural or inherent, they are still constructed. that's a big difference.

Do you deny that the male body is optimized for hunting and combat?

Do you deny that the female body is optimized for childbirth and rearing?

Thanks to technology, we no longer need to follow these roles for survival, but I don't see how any gender-studies-professor can deny that our genetics have predisposed us to these roles?

You are twisting the thing being deemed "natural". certainly social constructions of gender are "natural" in the sense of the fact that they are normal; that's what we as social animals do. However, that does not mean the gender roles themselves are natural or inherent, they are still constructed. that's a big difference.

I'm not twisting it. Social constructions are natural, but they are synthetic, ie. man-made. Normalcy is irrelevant.

Gender roles are stereotypes. While they are synthetic, they are still derived from observed phenomena. While they do not objectively depict observed phenomena, they still have a curve of truth to them. Much like how Jews are depicted as money swindlers because they were the ones who invented usury systems. Or like how Americans are depicted as fat because they are, in comparison to other countries, the most statistically obese. Gender rolls don't come from thin air. However, they can become anachronisms over time. They are not static. Hence, why women now have access to public education, job opportunities, and all other jobs that are gender neutral. Honestly, I think that women hold themselves back quite often by implying that they are discriminated against, much like how people of ethnicities other than Caucasian hold themselves back by making themselves look foolish by playing the race card. Women hamper their own success all the time, and it's not due to the fact they're women. We have laws against discrimination all over the board. Sometimes, the complaints from women are simply a matter of psychological projection, taking their own insecurities and then plastering them all over "society" as if we're a fascist patriarchy or something.

It would seem to me that third-wave feminism has less to do with equality, and more to do with dominance. Of course, I only have my personal experience to work with.

I'm glad you admit to your own ignorance here. That's very noble of you.

It may surprise you, but those who commit violence against women also often commit violence against men. I don't see how emphasizing the women who are attacked will do anything to prevent violent people from being violent.

Not necessarily. Many men who have a history of domestic violence are often weak & only commit violence against women. They see that they have a clear (physical) advantage and act on it; it's the power imbalance that disgusts people.

Originally Posted by Mystic Tater

I'm not twisting it. Social constructions are natural, but they are synthetic, ie. man-made. Normalcy is irrelevant.

Not necessarily. Many men who have a history of domestic violence are often weak & only commit violence against women. They see that they have a clear (physical) advantage and act on it; it's the power imbalance that disgusts people.

This is sad. The physical beating thing. I think men do this for both sexual and gender-roll(ish?) reasons.

We have laws against this in Western society, it's just a shame that these women feel too paralyzed to speak up if they are continually being beaten. Then again, there are also women who play mind-games with their partners, to the point of the men becoming emotionally abused. I'm wondering both forms of abuse happen. Do women feel that they're obligated to be subservient? Does it keep them there?